US Elections 2016

[BruceVC]

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

Sorry this post is pure alum ....100 % unedited 

 

He has an ability to make a post if someone says something he can work with that is impossible to deny.....its really funny when he makes the post as I always think " how is the person going to explain this one "  ..   

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Embarrassing myself? No.

 

Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic).

 

The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though.

 

 

Actually, in regards to the underlined bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post  My apologies for assuming and inferring you shared his underlined bolded view because you share the non-underlined bolded view as well as the rest. If you don't share that view, you certainly failed at conveying it above: 'And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.'

 

Anon.

 

I suggest you look up the various meanings of 'disgusting' and 'pig', then work on realizing that they are words that do not necessarily refer to someone's looks. I and many others certainly never took what Trump said about Rosie as a jab at her looks, but at her behavior. In fact this is the first discussion I've had about this subject with folks who assume it was about her looks, and this is not the first discussion I've had about that exchange between Megyn and Trump.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Embarrassing myself? No.

 

Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic).

 

The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though.

 

 

Actually, in regards to the bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post. My apoligies for assuming and inferring you shared his bolded view because you share the rest.

 

 

Vals you missing the point, sorry I assumed you knew what I meant when I said " women everywhere " 

 

I'll happily explain it but I'm sure you dont really believe  in sexism and gender equality so I dont want to waste my time but I will if you serious ?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

Embarrassing myself? No.

 

Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic).

 

The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though.

 

 

Actually, in regards to the bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post. My apoligies for assuming and inferring you shared his bolded view because you share the rest.

 

 

Vals you missing the point, sorry I assumed you knew what I meant when I said " women everywhere " 

 

I'll happily explain it but I'm sure you dont really believe  in sexism and gender equality so I dont want to waste my time but I will if you serious ?

 

 

No...

 

I'm done. It's too much work to hold your hand and walk you through consonant thinking.

 

Sorry.

 

Look me up if you're ever in New York. We'll have beers.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Embarrassing myself? No.

 

Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic).

 

The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though.

 

 

Actually, in regards to the bolded part I was referring to something BruceVC stated in an earlier post. My apoligies for assuming and inferring you shared his bolded view because you share the rest.

 

 

Vals you missing the point, sorry I assumed you knew what I meant when I said " women everywhere " 

 

I'll happily explain it but I'm sure you dont really believe  in sexism and gender equality so I dont want to waste my time but I will if you serious ?

 

 

No...

 

I'm done. It's too much work to hold your hand and walk you through consonant thinking.

 

Sorry.

 

Look me up if you're ever in New York. We'll have beers.

 

No problem

 

i prefer people just being honest like you did now because its  a waste of my time to make a long post if the person isnt that keen 

[Volourn]

"He insults people in different ways you right but I am more concerned with his treatment of women as they represent over 50% of the voting base. Priorities Volo.....never forget to priorities "

 

So.. men don't matter ebcause theya re a minority? L0L

 

 

 

"But there are other minorities he has insulted, you need to step up and help out my son. Why dont you go confirm with the Muslims he has insulted? You have a natural affinity with Muslims so they will listen to you ?"

 

But, you just claimed that minorities don't matter. OIh, my bad. They only don't matter if it is (white) men. Gotta it.  LMAO

 

 

"And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist."

 

That is stupid. So, if a woman calls me ugly that is sexist? Or, maybe she just called ME ugly. If a man calls a woman ugly it is an attack on that woman. If he calls ALL women ugly than that is sexist. Same with the opposite. btw, I do find all men ugly. That makes me sexist. L0-L

[BruceVC]

"He insults people in different ways you right but I am more concerned with his treatment of women as they represent over 50% of the voting base. Priorities Volo.....never forget to priorities "

 

So.. men don't matter ebcause theya re a minority? L0L

 

 

 

"But there are other minorities he has insulted, you need to step up and help out my son. Why dont you go confirm with the Muslims he has insulted? You have a natural affinity with Muslims so they will listen to you ?"

 

But, you just claimed that minorities don't matter. OIh, my bad. They only don't matter if it is (white) men. Gotta it.  LMAO

 

 

"And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist."

 

That is stupid. So, if a woman calls me ugly that is sexist? Or, maybe she just called ME ugly. If a man calls a woman ugly it is an attack on that woman. If he calls ALL women ugly than that is sexist. Same with the opposite. btw, I do find all men ugly. That makes me sexist. L0-L

Men do matter but not in this case because its about  the Democrats  getting as much of the womens vote as possible

 

Men have dominated US elections for decades and decades so I think its fine we focus primarily on women for this one...men will be fine I promise you

 

Besides isn't Trump considered more the mens choice? And now you clearly making excuses about reaching out to the Muslim community...Volo its disingenuous to suggest you want to get involved and then refuse the first task given to you    \

 

If a women really calls you ugly its probably true and then its NOT sexist 

[Volourn]

L0L So in Bruce's world only half the population matters. Men don't matter because theya re (barely) a minority but Muslims DO matter even though they are an extreme minority in the US. LMAO

 

But, thsi comes down to Bruce's SJW nazi sexist brainwashing. It doesn't matter to him that men  are almost half the number of  spousal abuse victims because that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

Also, btw, women have mattered in elections for a long time, dude. A LONG TIME. WHya re you so dismissive of women that you can't see how important they have been in history. LMAO

[Wrath of Dagon]

Regarding the SCOTUS appointments and Roe v. Wade. Five pro-lifers could be added to the court in the next five years, and Roe v. Wade still more than likely wouldn't be revisited for decades. Other possible cases regarding abortion perhaps might be decided differently than they otherwise would, but the 'right to abort' is not going anywhere via the SCOTUS, not even back to the states, unless of course the five justices added were all states rights folks. That isn't happening. The only candidate that might have nominated some judges that were strongly for the 10th amendment and generally against Federal government overreach was Rand Paul. There isn't a single candidate running right now that will give us SCOTUS justices that will seriously chip away at Federal power. Also, given that it has been the norm for quite some time now to nominate from the pool of Federal judges out there, there aren't even many (if any at this point) judges in that pool that are big 10th amendment fans.

 

The most likely scenario where we'd see the 'right to abort' put back firmly in the hands of the states, would be an Article V Convention initiated by the States where some amendment(s) was/were ratified by the States directly (very unlikely) or indirectly (possible) putting it there. A currently very unlikely scenario that certainly isn't happening anytime soon.

If the Court reverses itself (as Scalia, Alito and Thomas were pretty much on record wanting) and decides that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution, then the issue goes back to each individual state, 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it.

 

Edit: Looks like Trump isn't the only one who can't keep his talking points straight: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/ The sound you hear is 100 million SJW's shrieking "lump of tissue".

Edited April 3, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

If the Court reverses itself (as Scalia, Alito and Thomas were pretty much on record wanting) and decides that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution, then the issue goes back to each individual state, 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it.

 

Ummm, I've written and deleted at least five sarcastic responses to this but rather than do that I'll just suggest you rethink what you just posted there. I think you'll find... that you will wish you had worded that differently. Maybe after visiting wikipedia. Just a suggestion. 

[Calax]

Sincerely yours 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

If the Court reverses itself (as Scalia, Alito and Thomas were pretty much on record wanting) and decides that the right to abortion is not in the Constitution, then the issue goes back to each individual state, 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it.

Ummm, I've written and deleted at least five sarcastic responses to this but rather than do that I'll just suggest you rethink what you just posted there. I think you'll find... that you will wish you had worded that differently. Maybe after visiting wikipedia. Just a suggestion.

 

I think you misunderstand me. Valsuelm claimed the issue here it the 10th amendment, my point is that 10th amendment is not in dispute in the abortion issue. 10th amendment doesn't preclude any rights granted under the Constitution. If that's not what you mean feel free to explain yourself.

 

Why can't Trump talk like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1qOA2PVDS8&feature=youtu.be ? Miller should be running for President.

[Guard Dog]

Ok, that's not the way your comment read to me at least, but you understand what I was getting at. 

[Meshugger]

Each time one person cries about sexism, 10 more people will cheer for the one accused of such.

[BruceVC]

Each time one person cries about sexism, 10 more people will cheer for the one accused of such.

Thats okay, its the RL outcome from Trumps sexism and how women will vote that matters 

[Meshugger]

 

Each time one person cries about sexism, 10 more people will cheer for the one accused of such.

Thats okay, its the RL outcome from Trumps sexism and how women will vote that matters 

 

 

Weak bait. Step up your game.

[Zoraptor]

Why would he bother when low effort rubbish still gets a response?

 

Sincerely yours 

 

Not even the alternative angle shakey cam can make that stunner look good, though it looks far better than the 'official' angle did.

[Raithe]

[BruceVC]

Why would he bother when low effort rubbish still gets a response?

 

Its called brevity Zora, sometimes you dont need to write a paragraph to make a simple point 

[Hurlshort]

I would never accuse Bruce of brevity.

[BruceVC]

I would never accuse Bruce of brevity.

 

Yes that was difficult to write

[Guard Dog]

You know is it a tired and often fatal error to assume political opponents are stupid. It is generally something you hear out of the left born of the arrogant notion that anyone whose opinions are contrary to theirs must be stupid. You hard that about Reagan, George W Bush and just about every other Republican who has ever run for President or other high office. It's seldom been true and it's not true of Trump either. He is an educated man who has been largely successful in almost every endeavor he has attempted. That is not something a stupid person can be expected to accomplish. It doesn't mean he knows everything and it certainly does not inoculate him from saying something dumb. But it's just false to assume he is an intellectual lightweight or that his Presidency should he win would be a disaster. As I've pointed out earlier the record of Presidents who were "hands off" executive leaders that delegated most of their work is generally better than the "hands on" leaders who had a reputation of being a micromanager. Jimmy Carter was one of the biggest micromanagers to ever occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and HE was a disaster. 

[Hurlshort]

Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles.  

[Guard Dog]

Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles.  

I'll say one thing for Obama, he has been partially responsible for more gun sales than any other man on earth.

[Volourn]

"Of course, Obama and Clinton aren't really fascists that are going to come into your homes, steal your guns, and burn your bibles."

 

Not for a lack of trying. Thanfully, I don't have a bible or a gun. Nor am I Amerikan. But, trust me, like all politicians, they would lvoe to come into your home and tell you you lvie the way they want you to - just like 99% of people. Because people don't believe in freedom as a general rule. Most people don't even know what freedom or freedom of choice is.